I tend to agree. I have to use it at work and I understand the arguments in favour; but to me it still feels like a ball-and-chain compared to vanilla JS. I do understand some of the benefits; but there are also some downsides:
junior devs coming from type-safe languages can get a false sense of security: e.g. not doing proper type-checking on data coming from a back-end
assuming that private really means private
not getting a proper understanding of JS. ((synctatic) sugar is bad for you)
But yes - mainly my problem is that it can encourage a classic OOP approach to coding when IMO one of the big strengths of JS is that it facilitates some really effective functional approaches.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I tend to agree. I have to use it at work and I understand the arguments in favour; but to me it still feels like a ball-and-chain compared to vanilla JS. I do understand some of the benefits; but there are also some downsides:
privatereally means privateBut yes - mainly my problem is that it can encourage a classic OOP approach to coding when IMO one of the big strengths of JS is that it facilitates some really effective functional approaches.